Of course, the silver lining or solution to this mess is reform of ethics rules. Right? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/12/28/DI2005122800810.html
Dean better be correct or his words will bounce back at him hard. There's a danger in sounding so absolutely positive.
Only Republicans took money DIRECTLY from Abramoff. Abramoff ripped off/duped his clients and gave that money directly through personal contributions, to ONLY Republicans. There is not one Dem politician/organization on this list: http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php
Hey that's a great list. Check out the contributions from the "newsmakers" on the upper right Congress was for $ale
This stuff is all easily available, easily researched. He's correct, unless Abramoff gave some Dem an amount so small it didn't have to be reported. Which is a million to one shot, plus, if there's no attachment between the name and the donation, it'll be damn hard to prove.
Will some of this stick on the walls of the White House? The Next Abramoff Shoe To Drop Bush removal ended Guam investigation US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist
If it does I can't imagine anything that could be much worse Why? Remember Republicans went out to vote "W" in because he was ethical, where Clinton was not. In fact, y'all remember that "W" went out of his way to say he would hold the White House to the "highest standards". If BILL CLINTON-of all things-starts to look more ethical than "W" to the average moron that would CRUSHING news for the Republicans at election time this year
You're all going to be disappointed that this won't end up like Watergate did. Americans don't care, they don't know Jack Abramoff, they know little about Tom DeLay, they wouldn't care about the K street project except that it reveals the interesting tidbit that Washington has streets named after letters of the alphabet ... and they expect very little ethically speaking from their government. Besides - who exactly from the Democratic party is going to carry this message?
Jack Abramoff, NO DEMOCRAT Therein lies your problem. REPUBLICANS CANNOT BULLSH!T THEIR WAY AROUND THIS Everybody wants to get AWAY from the stink of Abramoff's dealings. There is no spin going on. As for it not resulting in much, maybe so, but it already caused DeLay to step down as he knew he couldn't fight it. We'll see what happens, but it's clear Republicans are very concerned about it right now.
Reeps in disarray. How many wobbles will fall? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a64ZIkmVPv_w
"They're portraying Jack as a monster[.] I see him more as a good person who's done bad things and has to be punished for doing bad things." --Dana Rohrabacher, as ever, an idiot. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dana10jan10,0,4887510.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews
What a horrible thought. Preventing illegals from coming into the country. What kind of a jackass figured that one out
The kind of jackass that looks a the Defense Department and sees high profit margins building a wall to keep out the Mongols.
F Tom Delay, anyways about Reed....The guy who preached Christian ethics of all things. Good riddance. This guy was a huge part of the "Christian Coalition" that if you remember helped cause a Republican majority in the Congress by motivating Christians around the country to stop Washington from liberalizing society (remember "gays in the military"??? lol) I really think this Abramoff could be BIG TIME BAD NEWS for Republicans, Reed's just the latest casualty
From http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2589 ........ When the DoJ questions lobbyist Jack Abramoff, they should demand honest, in-depth answers regarding how he and Rep. Tom DeLay obeyed the demands of Microsoft and similar employers to maintain and expand the controversial H-1B visa program, which DeLay first supported in October, 1990. In the late 1990s, Abramoff was a Microsoft lobbyist. Microsoft's lobbying disclosure forms indicate their keen interest in the visa program, which has allowed them to avoid billions in salary and benefit expenditures to American citizens by substituting pliant "third world" skilled labor. Microsoft spent about $20 million lobbying during those years, so they received a "quid pro quo." Abramoff's lobbying network included Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, who both worked to implement Microsoft's desires. The "soft rustle" of millions of lobbying dollars trumped reasoned arguments from people like myself, who gave testimony twice against the visa program in the House. Hundreds of thousands of experienced American citizens (including me) have lost their careers and livelihoods in "high tech" fields as a consequence of the gluts of special visa labor, which must be located here, because important business processes depend on clear communication and instant feedback - not twelve time zones away. It was no coincidence that the stealth December, 2005 attempt to increase H1-B visa caps, which passed in the Senate, was dubbed the "Microsoft Bill" by Capitol Hill insiders. Since DeLay was preoccupied fighting his indictment, and was under tight scrutiny, he couldn't ram the bill through the House. Gene Nelson, Ph.D. Carrollton, TX...
So much for the naive way of seeing things...and saying that "money only buys you access... nothing else" .... Well, crap like this screams for a damn campaign finance reform.. another one, that reaches farther than the one passed a few years ago..... Amd this Microsoft stuff is not necessarily the worst of ideas... However, one wishes more transparency in the process...